Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!

[Juana]

I don't disagree there, Roger. Making professions and jobs gender neutral is part of the goal of feminism, I think.

Sure. When women and females don't spend every day of their lives trying not to be raped and/or killed and we're all paid the same wage as white men, we can swap over to a gender-inclusive term.

An excellent point...But one possible tool to do that is gender neutrality.  I don't mean scrapping the word "feminist", as Vex seems to be suggesting, because it works just fine.

I mean, for example, the change from "steward" and "stewardess" to "flight attendant".  Or changing existing words.  These days, when I hear "Doctor" I make no assumptions, while in the late 70s I would have automatically assumed a male, and the converse for the word "nurse".

This. And I don't mean to completely get rid of "feminism," but to focus the activist, society-changing efforts toward gender neutrality, not toward "women's rights" per se.

*sigh* I don't think you understand feminism very well. The end goal of feminism (especially third-wave and beyond) is universal equality, where gender (or race or sex or religion or class or or or or about a million other things) does not matter.
But women's rights are still behind yours. I would 100% support extending this to include all genders (because cis men, man, you've got it made), but gender neutrality cannot be met until the rest of us are your equal, de jure and de facto.


Also, jumping back to the OP, gendered assumptions about what gender fills what job hurts men. EG, dudely nurses are (or can be) just as good as lady nurses, but they sometimes receive shit for it.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The idea that any person should be considered in any way different from any other person on the basis of anything other than what they do is perplexing and foreign to me, even submerged in a culture that is fraught with these kinds of assessments.

"The fleshy package your personality is wrapped in is in some ways dissimilar, and in other ways similar, to the one mine is wrapped in."

That is the most meaningful statement that can be made concerning the differences between male and female. But the same statement can be made to distinguish any two people, so it is ultimately meaningless.

We can't expect to arrive at any real gender neutrality when we leave the social structures of patriarchy in place. Matriarchy would be the same thing in reverse, so that's a no-go. "Feminism" is probably something closer to the right way, but the fact that its root word is specifically and exclusively female pays too much lip service to this illusion of some inherent distinction between a person who is a woman, and a person who is a man.

I'm curious how you feel about all the common English words that have specifically and exclusively male roots, like seminal, human, and android? I find that most people don't notice the gendered origin of broadly applied male-gender-derived words the way they notice female-gender-derived words. Do you think that aspect might be a symptom of patriarchy, and if yes, do you think that symptom might recede as patriarchy recedes?

[tyrannosaurus vex]

I don't disagree there, Roger. Making professions and jobs gender neutral is part of the goal of feminism, I think.

Sure. When women and females don't spend every day of their lives trying not to be raped and/or killed and we're all paid the same wage as white men, we can swap over to a gender-inclusive term.

An excellent point...But one possible tool to do that is gender neutrality.  I don't mean scrapping the word "feminist", as Vex seems to be suggesting, because it works just fine.

I mean, for example, the change from "steward" and "stewardess" to "flight attendant".  Or changing existing words.  These days, when I hear "Doctor" I make no assumptions, while in the late 70s I would have automatically assumed a male, and the converse for the word "nurse".

This. And I don't mean to completely get rid of "feminism," but to focus the activist, society-changing efforts toward gender neutrality, not toward "women's rights" per se.

*sigh* I don't think you understand feminism very well. The end goal of feminism (especially third-wave and beyond) is universal equality, where gender (or race or sex or religion or class or or or or about a million other things) does not matter.
But women's rights are still behind yours. I would 100% support extending this to include all genders (because cis men, man, you've got it made), but gender neutrality cannot be met until the rest of us are your equal, de jure and de facto.


Also, jumping back to the OP, gendered assumptions about what gender fills what job hurts men. EG, dudely nurses are (or can be) just as good as lady nurses, but they sometimes receive shit for it.

I don't think you understand my position. I'm not saying that women's rights are equal already, and I realize the ultimate goal of feminism is universal equality. I'm saying that feminism's female-centric approach may be one thing that is standing in the way of reaching that goal.

I understand the maneuver: you stir up the blatant sexist elements in industry, government, or wherever, identify them, and take them out one way or another (usually their own douchebagginess, once publicly displayed, is enough to remove them from their positions). Feminism is good at stirring them up because lots of assholes are allergic to "feminism." They start talking shit about "feminists" and pretty soon everybody knows what a chauvinist they are, and then they go away.

But what I'm saying is that, at this point, it's possible that that tactic is experiencing the law of diminishing returns; by continuing to put itself out there, Feminism is creating bigots as fast as it is identifying and removing them -- not because it's doing anything wrong but because it can be made to look that way, to idiots. And since we're never going to get rid of the stupid, it may be worth considering changing gears and go with a more inclusive equality movement.

TL;DR: Feminism itself may be delaying the success of feminism, because its female-centric character can be too easily portrayed as "hypocrisy" -- even though it isn't hypocritical.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

The idea that any person should be considered in any way different from any other person on the basis of anything other than what they do is perplexing and foreign to me, even submerged in a culture that is fraught with these kinds of assessments.

"The fleshy package your personality is wrapped in is in some ways dissimilar, and in other ways similar, to the one mine is wrapped in."

That is the most meaningful statement that can be made concerning the differences between male and female. But the same statement can be made to distinguish any two people, so it is ultimately meaningless.

We can't expect to arrive at any real gender neutrality when we leave the social structures of patriarchy in place. Matriarchy would be the same thing in reverse, so that's a no-go. "Feminism" is probably something closer to the right way, but the fact that its root word is specifically and exclusively female pays too much lip service to this illusion of some inherent distinction between a person who is a woman, and a person who is a man.

I'm curious how you feel about all the common English words that have specifically and exclusively male roots, like seminal, human, and android? I find that most people don't notice the gendered origin of broadly applied male-gender-derived words the way they notice female-gender-derived words. Do you think that aspect might be a symptom of patriarchy, and if yes, do you think that symptom might recede as patriarchy recedes?

Well, languages certainly evolve over time. And of course patriarchy informs the language of any patriarchal society just as it affects events. The words you mention are ancient, so probably more resistant to change. But we have seen the loss of some more recent gender-specific words, or at least a decreasing use of them. "Chairman," "Stewardess," and other words which used to elicit an immediate gender connotation have lost that connotation. Considering out language is a thousand years old and the conscious effort to push for gender equality is barely a century old, I think those effects are fairly impressive. But yeah, I think some of the words you mentioned will either fall out of common usage because of equality, or take on different meanings and connotations.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I don't disagree there, Roger. Making professions and jobs gender neutral is part of the goal of feminism, I think.

Sure. When women and females don't spend every day of their lives trying not to be raped and/or killed and we're all paid the same wage as white men, we can swap over to a gender-inclusive term.

An excellent point...But one possible tool to do that is gender neutrality.  I don't mean scrapping the word "feminist", as Vex seems to be suggesting, because it works just fine.

I mean, for example, the change from "steward" and "stewardess" to "flight attendant".  Or changing existing words.  These days, when I hear "Doctor" I make no assumptions, while in the late 70s I would have automatically assumed a male, and the converse for the word "nurse".

This. And I don't mean to completely get rid of "feminism," but to focus the activist, society-changing efforts toward gender neutrality, not toward "women's rights" per se.

*sigh* I don't think you understand feminism very well. The end goal of feminism (especially third-wave and beyond) is universal equality, where gender (or race or sex or religion or class or or or or about a million other things) does not matter.
But women's rights are still behind yours. I would 100% support extending this to include all genders (because cis men, man, you've got it made), but gender neutrality cannot be met until the rest of us are your equal, de jure and de facto.


Also, jumping back to the OP, gendered assumptions about what gender fills what job hurts men. EG, dudely nurses are (or can be) just as good as lady nurses, but they sometimes receive shit for it.

That, or they get the "Oh my god, you're such a HERO! You're SO BRAVE! <SWOON>" treatment. I know a pediatric oncological nurse who gets that all the time.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The idea that any person should be considered in any way different from any other person on the basis of anything other than what they do is perplexing and foreign to me, even submerged in a culture that is fraught with these kinds of assessments.

"The fleshy package your personality is wrapped in is in some ways dissimilar, and in other ways similar, to the one mine is wrapped in."

That is the most meaningful statement that can be made concerning the differences between male and female. But the same statement can be made to distinguish any two people, so it is ultimately meaningless.

We can't expect to arrive at any real gender neutrality when we leave the social structures of patriarchy in place. Matriarchy would be the same thing in reverse, so that's a no-go. "Feminism" is probably something closer to the right way, but the fact that its root word is specifically and exclusively female pays too much lip service to this illusion of some inherent distinction between a person who is a woman, and a person who is a man.

I'm curious how you feel about all the common English words that have specifically and exclusively male roots, like seminal, human, and android? I find that most people don't notice the gendered origin of broadly applied male-gender-derived words the way they notice female-gender-derived words. Do you think that aspect might be a symptom of patriarchy, and if yes, do you think that symptom might recede as patriarchy recedes?

Well, languages certainly evolve over time. And of course patriarchy informs the language of any patriarchal society just as it affects events. The words you mention are ancient, so probably more resistant to change. But we have seen the loss of some more recent gender-specific words, or at least a decreasing use of them. "Chairman," "Stewardess," and other words which used to elicit an immediate gender connotation have lost that connotation. Considering out language is a thousand years old and the conscious effort to push for gender equality is barely a century old, I think those effects are fairly impressive. But yeah, I think some of the words you mentioned will either fall out of common usage because of equality, or take on different meanings and connotations.

Do you think the same might be true of the word "feminism", or that the fact that it generates this kind of dialogue might be part of its usefulness?

It is, after all, a little hard to address the lower social status of women without mentioning it, and it seems to me that it's not going to matter much what you call it; the same people are going to object to it as soon as they realize it's about achieving equal social status for men, women and etc.

At least this way the dialogue is open and on the table, and nobody can make accusations that the movement is trying to "hide anything", which is undoubtedly what would happen if it were called something more neutral and less established. It is pretty much a given that if, for instance, we called ourselves "egalitarianists", the Traditional Family Values people would then attack us for our "hidden feminist agenda".

[Juana]

^^^ That.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Personally, I like the word "feminist" because the people I like know what it means, and the people I don't like immediately start screaming about "ball-busting, domineering bitches", and then they spend the rest of the day all raged-out.

Which, you know, gives me a warm feeling in my bits.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

That feminism is beneficial to both men and women is lost on the vast majority of simpletons who are too dumb to look at a word like "feminism" and see anything beyond the first 3 letters.

I don't think it would matter if feminism went by another name.

Look at what the vast majority of simpletons did with the word "socialism", for example.

I mean, we're talking about simpletons here, who by definition are language manglers.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

That feminism is beneficial to both men and women is lost on the vast majority of simpletons who are too dumb to look at a word like "feminism" and see anything beyond the first 3 letters.

I don't think it would matter if feminism went by another name.

Look at what the vast majority of simpletons did with the word "socialism", for example.

I mean, we're talking about simpletons here, who by definition are language manglers.

Any idiot can find something wrong with anything.

That's why they're idiots.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

YOU'RE ALL RIGHT.

I really should check whatever part of my DNA it is that makes me want to play Devil's Advocate all the fucking time.

[Freeky]

I second Alty regarding wife number two; gender roles are set by men (and the "woman stays at home" is relatively recent and, random historical fact of the day, courtesy of the Dutch).

The patriarchy is what stereotypes men as, basically, cavemen incapable of controlling themselves, who think exclusively with their dicks (which, coincidely links into rape culture, since women/females are supposed to know this and take care if ourselves accordingly).
Feminism holds you to be capable of being more than that.

Seriously?  In an example that gives two women, one who bucked the gender stereotype and was successful, the other who chose to embrace the stereotype, you're still going to absolve Wife#2 of any blame for the harm she was doing her family, and continue to blame the patriarchy?  OMG, what does a woman have to do to get credit for her own fuckups?

Dude, chill. No one is attacking you. *Her* expectation that househusband get a job and shit is the result of patriarchal expectations and gender roles. Is it her fault for not putting the well-being of the first househusband above her expectation? Yes. She should see that it works better for them like this. Was it her fault for preventing her own husband from nuturing his kids? Yes. And it's grossly unfair for her to do so. But, again, those expectations of hers resulted from traditional, patriarchal gender roles.

But she should be able to rise above the expectations of that patriarchy.  At some point, she has to stop sitting on her ass waiting to be given responsbility over her own life, and take it, instead. 
I'm a strong woman who thinks for herself.  The patriarchy might be to blame for how hard I have to struggle to be me, but it's not to blame if I give up.  And it's not to blame if I choose to embrace it instead.
And if one woman can rise above the patriarchy, it's not the patriarchy's fault if other women believe the lies they're told.

You know, I said not thirty seconds ago that I wanted to catch up with this thread so I didn't repeat anything, but I think if anyone has pointed this out, it should be underscored:  You are being a fucking bitch.  No, you're being a goddamn cunt.  Twatwaffle.  Douchebitch.  Take your pick, and if you don't like these, I have others in mind that are far more offensive. 

Who the fuck are you to tell a woman who is a housewife (which, I might add, is an incredibly hard job to do, and you don't get fucking paid for it, and time off means things fall to shit) that they are being a lazy fucking scumbag who is letting the patriarchy tell them what to do?  Who the fuck are you to tell them that they have to go out and get a job when they are a lot more happy at home, raising children and keeping shit together?  I agree that she did her husband a disservice by forcing him into a gender role of breadwinner only no nurturing allowed, but you're being an utter shitbag about this. 

[Freeky]

CW: that shit starts at home. If you don't want to see pussyfooting perhaps you should call out exactly what you see that's hindering this discussion instead of making vague accusations.

I don't know if you were talking about my posts, and if you are I have no problem them being put into question. But it's kind of hard to tell since, you know...

... Are you going to want me to go back to every single post that's already been made?  Because, one, that's more effort than I care to put in, which is why I was vague to begin with, and two, if you don't see it already, you're not going to see it even if I grabbed you by the scruff of your neck and rubbed your nose in it.
If you think I'm talking about your posts, then you have a choice: ignore what I said, or take a second look at your posts and make up your own mind.

Ah. So, we don't even need to discuss any of this, or can't because even if we did I certainly wouldn't get it because I don't already. Congrats on furthering the discussion, finally.

An example would have been nice. I don't know why you're being so passive-aggressive and I don't care. I'm just going to ignore your posts since I'm incapable of understanding them anyway.

OMFG, why is my passive-agressiveness offensive, but your defensiveness is ok?  Why should I have to put someone else on blast to assure you that you're not doing something wrong?

Because Alty is a reasonable human being and you are a shitstain.

[Salty]

Oh, I dunno.

This:

OMFG, why is my passive-agressiveness offensive, but your defensiveness is ok?

is one of the funniest things I've ever read on here.

WYLDKAT IS THAT YUO?

[Juana]